Garda getting body cams

Boggles

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

It does happen.

This officer was fired for blocking the mic while having stopped an old friend (@ 1:00). Disabling audio first reason for dismissal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fg7DM8-GOI

Now i'm not aware of the actual laws state or federal surrounding it but they are not allowed to inhibit the filming.

He didn't get fired solely for covering his mick, he got fired for making his superior look like a Tít in front of a Senator, namely encouraging the girl to commit a crime.

He was rehired by the county next door and is still a Police Officer.

SchrodingersCat

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

It's very simple. The cameras have to be on while gardai are on patrol.

seamus wrote: »

A garda takes a camera at the start of their shift from a pool. The camera is charged, the details of who took which camera are logged. The camera remains on for the duration of the shift, and is checked back in at the end. It is plugged into the system, the data is downloaded to a secure system.

The Garda does not at any time have access to modify the data on the camera, to start or stop the camera, and the footage can only be reviewed through a central system where all accesses are logged.

This is purely speculation of how the camera system will work. If we take the example of how the camera systems currently works in other countries, it is the police officers that activate and deactivate the cameras.

from https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-lapd-body-cameras-20170330-story.html

The officers were wearing body cameras, which are intended to add clarity to controversial moments in policing — including these types of shootings.
The problem: The cameras weren’t on.
Last Saturday’s shooting was at least the second this year in which body cameras worn by LAPD officers weren’t recording when they fired their guns. Since the department launched its ambitious 7,000-camera deployment in August 2015, there have been at least four shootings in which officers didn’t have their cameras on at the time, according to a Times review of LAPD statements and reports.
Those cases underscore a growing predicament as more law enforcement agencies deploy body cameras. While the use of the technology has increased, so have examples in which the cameras weren’t on when they were supposed to be.

joe swanson

blanch152 wrote: »

Yes, of course.

Take the Tallaght Burton case for example. If the accounts of the events put forward by the defence are to be taken as true, then the case would never have gone to court if there was garda video evidence as the evidence would clearly have shown that Paul Murphy et al were merely ordinary everyday citizens meekly going about a peaceful protest.

Surely that is to be welcomed?

Bull

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Yes, of course.

Take the Tallaght Burton case for example. If the accounts of the events put forward by the defence are to be taken as true, then the case would never have gone to court if there was garda video evidence as the evidence would clearly have shown that Paul Murphy et al were merely ordinary everyday citizens meekly going about a peaceful protest.

Surely that is to be welcomed?

They were though. Blocking a car is common in peaceful protest.
You've a point. Imagine if the Garda testimonies were to be taken as true but for the video evidence. An innocent man falsely charged by incorrect false statements from a number of Garda. Perish the thought right? He'd already had a dawn raid on his house based on that 'proof'.

blanch152

joe swanson wrote: »

Bull

Matt Barrett wrote: »

They were though. Blocking a car is common in peaceful protest.
You've a point. Imagine if the Garda testimonies were to be taken as true but for the video evidence. An innocent man falsely charged by incorrect false statements from a number of Garda. Perish the thought right? He'd already had a dawn raid on his house based on that 'proof'.

I don't know why you are taking issue with me.

If the gardai had worn cameras, we would have been able to clearly see that Burton and her colleagues were not intimidated, harrassed and imprisoned and that the likes of Paul Murphy were good honest decent citizens behaving properly and politely in a peaceful protest.

I have no problem with that.


Edit: Blocking a car may be common in a peaceful protest, but it is illegal. I thought you were against illegality by politicians.

Kermit.de.frog

We have 'socialist' troublemakers on the thread I see.

No reason to object to video evidence of innocence then at protests.

I'm certain the footage would have shown the real scrotes to be the gardai and not the local, eh, scrotes.

weldoninhio

bubblypop wrote: »

that won't happen Im afraid.
firstly, the guard is entitled to some privacy. how about toilet breaks etc?
or private conversations between colleagues?
there will have to be protocols put in place about when and where the cameras should be turned on.

I’m sure Gardai take their jacket off before heading to the jacks. Private conversations between colleagues should be had whilst off duty or on a break.

Philipx

weldoninhio wrote: »

I’m sure Gardai take their jacket off before heading to the jacks. Private conversations between colleagues should be had whilst off duty or on a break.

So 2 Gardaí, colleagues & quite possibly friends, spend a 10 hour shift together in a patrol car.

By your argument for 9 hours they can discuss nothing except legal and other official matters pertaining to their job?

Seriously?

weldoninhio

weldoninhio wrote: »

I’m sure Gardai take their jacket off before heading to the jacks. Private conversations between colleagues should be had whilst off duty or on a break.

really? male gardai take off their jacket before having a pee?

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

I don't know why you are taking issue with me.

If the gardai had worn cameras, we would have been able to clearly see that Burton and her colleagues were not intimidated, harrassed and imprisoned and that the likes of Paul Murphy were good honest decent citizens behaving properly and politely in a peaceful protest.

I have no problem with that.


Edit: Blocking a car may be common in a peaceful protest, but it is illegal. I thought you were against illegality by politicians.

Not taking issue. Agreeing.

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

We have 'socialist' troublemakers on the thread I see.

No reason to object to video evidence of innocence then at protests.

I'm certain the footage would have shown the real scrotes to be the gardai and not the local, eh, scrotes.

You have it backwards. Murphy is pretty socialist. I'd say he was delighted somebody made a video.
I think the days of taking someones word just because of their job are far behind us.

weldoninhio

Philipx wrote: »

So 2 Gardaí, colleagues & quite possibly friends, spend a 10 hour shift together in a patrol car.

By your argument for 9 hours they can discuss nothing except legal and other official matters pertaining to their job?

Seriously?

They can discuss what they want. But if it incriminates them in anything it should be used against them. I can’t see any reason why footage of a Gardai in a jacks or having a “private” conversation would ever need to be accessed?

Overheal

Of course cameras will be able to be turned off. Make no illusion otherwise. Aside from “muh privacy” there are technical limitations in power and storage.

The real test will be how the Irish justice system handles discrepancies. It’s hard in the US because of the anatomy of law enforcement.

weldoninhio

Overheal wrote: »

Of course cameras will be able to be turned off. Make no illusion otherwise. Aside from “muh privacy” there are technical limitations in power and storage.

The real test will be how the Irish justice system handles discrepancies. It’s hard in the US because of the anatomy of law enforcement.

It works in other countries. Why would power and storage be different in Ireland? Heard a Welsh cop talk about them this morning. He said they have worked brilliantly over there and a lot of people who are excessively angry seem to calm down when they realise everything is being recorded. He felt a lot safer and comfortable now that all interactions are recorded.

PhilOssophy

Great step forward. Next step = start tagging these scumbags with 120 convictions who are out on bail

Overheal

weldoninhio wrote: »

It works in other countries. Why would power and storage be different in Ireland? Heard a Welsh cop talk about them this morning. He said they have worked brilliantly over there and a lot of people who are excessively angry seem to calm down when they realise everything is being recorded. He felt a lot safer and comfortable now that all interactions are recorded.

And I doubt his is on the entire shift.

US2

How can ANYONE have a problem with this. It's good for everyone , surley?

Someone said something about "peaceful protests" being affected, how??

4068ac1elhodqr

PhilOssophy wrote: »

Great step forward. Next step = start tagging these scumbags with 120 convictions who are out on bail

That's probably the best argument against it. I.e. If criminals with hundreds of convictions are free to roam, it's simply a pointless PR/administrative exercise.

Kermit.de.frog

US2 wrote: »

How can ANYONE have a problem with this.

The Irish Council for Criminal Liberties are the only ones with an issue. Everyone else supports it.

Guy:Incognito

riffmongous wrote: »

Take your pick from any of the recent Gardai scandals

What do you think the gardai will do against you with the camera?

Unless you reckon they are going to start deepfaking videos , then they cant show anything you didnt do.

If you think they will start deepfaking then they could just do that anyway with any camera.

SchrodingersCat

US2 wrote: »

How can ANYONE have a problem with this. It's good for everyone , surley?

Someone said something about "peaceful protests" being affected, how??

1. Some would say that it is another step towards a surveillance state.
2. "Peaceful" protests are what the government define as "peaceful".
For example, the civil rights march in Derry that led to Bloody Sunday was deemed illegal by the government allowing the soldiers to arrest. Only recently had the Saville tribunal deemed it legal. More recently, we have seen where protest marches in Hong Kong are deemed illegal by the government. We have seen here too how the government have used CCTV and facial recognition to suppress the protesters. In retaliation, the protesters have worn facemasks, which resulted in the government to issue a law banning facemasks.


For the record, im not saying whether Garda cameras are a good or bad thing. Im saying that it is not black and white as people think whether they are a good or bad thing for our society.

Sierra Oscar

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

The Irish Council for Criminal Liberties are the only ones with an issue. Everyone else supports it.

Indeed. Worth noting that they opposed the use of any CCTV down through the years, whether by the Government or businesses seeking to protect their property.

Overheal

US2 wrote: »

How can ANYONE have a problem with this. It's good for everyone , surley?

Someone said something about "peaceful protests" being affected, how??

It's a mixed bag.

Yes, in the design case the evidence is used to give an unobjective silent witness that at least conveys context from an officer's perspective.

At its worse the technology has been abused both as a means to fabricate evidence and a means to conceal evidence: "Department Camera Policy" is an oft used defense to explain why video of an officer assaulting or killing a member of the public will be controlled access. Additionally, the mere presence of the cameras can give some departments an undeserved veneer of transparency when in fact they may be using them selectively to their favor only and withholding exculpatory evidence from otherwise innocent people.

In at least a few cases cameras have inadvertently caught dirty cops (who sadly went on to be defended with closed ranks) using the cameras to plant evidence. One Boston cop eg. didn't know his bodycam captured what was in the buffer prior to hitting the record button, so it detailed him planting evidence and then "discovering" that hidden evidence. Plenty of examples online. In many other cases audio is manually cut off or the microphone or camera are physically obstructed by hand.

At the end of the day the technology is fallible and in the hands of officers that will uncontrollably encounter conflicts of interest on the job.

Kermit.de.frog

Then make it a criminal offence to tamper with the camera.

Tampering is going to be noticed.

Overheal

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Then make it a criminal offence to tamper with the camera.

Tampering is going to be noticed.

I mean tampering with evidence has been on the books longer than digital cameras have been around.

Now you're wondering how much Police ever faithfully adhered to the law in their work.

Varik

US2 wrote: »

How can ANYONE have a problem with this. It's good for everyone , surley?

Someone said something about "peaceful protests" being affected, how??

Whoever said "Peaceful" protests was probably being vicious.

Having video makes it harder for some protester acting like a thug to make the claim they were only peacefully protesting.

Kermit.de.frog

My prediction is the cameras will be standard in a couple of years, will be effective for police and the judiciary and we will be wondering why it didn't happen sooner.

It's a no brainer in terms of helping enhance professionalism of individual gardai with more scrutiny and providing more solid evidence against criminal behaviour.

blanch152

weldoninhio wrote: »

It works in other countries. Why would power and storage be different in Ireland? Heard a Welsh cop talk about them this morning. He said they have worked brilliantly over there and a lot of people who are excessively angry seem to calm down when they realise everything is being recorded. He felt a lot safer and comfortable now that all interactions are recorded.

We never have anyone angry confronting the Gardai.

We only ever have reasonable people engaging in peaceful protest in a dignified way. The great thing is that the cameras will confirm this.

Atlantic Dawn

Without having the body cams tamper proof they shouldn't be introduced as it will only support one side of an argument at the control of the Garda.

Overheal

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

My prediction is the cameras will be standard in a couple of years, will be effective for police and the judiciary and we will be wondering why it didn't happen sooner.

It's a no brainer in terms of helping enhance professionalism of individual gardai with more scrutiny and providing more solid evidence against criminal behaviour.

It's for sure a technology which is mature enough that it should be deployed, even if in trial batches. Just note that it's not going to perfect policing.

seamus

Overheal wrote: »

It's for sure a technology which is mature enough that it should be deployed, even if in trial batches. Just note that it's not going to perfect policing.

I think this is where the ICCL have come off as a bit silly.

Their reasoning boils down to the fact that it's not perfect and it's not proven, therefore it shouldn't be used until it is.

A representative from the ICCL was giving interviews yesterday and he came off as a little more reasonable than the press release. But as far as I can tell their big bugbear is mass surveillance. Which is a good thing to oppose. But they're completely blinkered by the issue so will oppose anything which might increase the number of cameras in public places. If they took more of a "maybe, if" stance rather than "no no no", they might get better traction.

A member from the GRA pointed out that body cams would be of massive benefit in domestic violence cases where a victim is often reluctant to give a statement after the fact. Body cam footage would give the Gardai the ability to pursue prosecutions without the victim's cooperation.

The ICCL guy had no real respone for that except to go on about data and unproven, etc again.